[OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Michael Herman via OSList oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Fri Oct 9 08:10:12 PDT 2015


was that a formal or informal end to the inquiry?






--

Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org


On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Mezick <dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:

> Now, wow!
>
> It appears Pernilla Luttropp may have some legitimately clairvoyant
> powers! I mean seriously. She may be able to see the future.
>
> For example, she has (by all appearances) anticipated and fully answered
> most of these questions, almost 10 full days in advance of these questions
> actually being asked:
>
>
> Questions: from 10/8, yesterday:
>
> *how does this essay inform your practice of opening space? or
> participating on the list? **if everything in the essay is true, what *
> *should** the next wosonos invitation process look like? **can we put
> this in practice terms? *
> *what is one to do in the presence of tyrannizing structurelessness? what
> has anyone done in the past, in those instances you've seen, that made some
> positive difference? *
>
>
> Answers: from 9/30, almost 10 full days previous:
>
> The countries/places that wish to host a future WOSONOS could post this on
> the OSLIST and Facebook and send a gentle reminder a few weeks before the
> upcoming WOSONOS. The inviting hosts would then be posted on a flip chart
> at the WOSONOS and announced as a session when creating the bulletin board
> or at the evening news. As always there is the opportunity to add places,
> sessions and news announcements up until the closing circle, both on the
> spot and via other ways of communicating. This would make it easier for
> everyone to approach the hosts, express their delight or ask clarifying
> questions. It would also enable the hosts (or their representatives) to
> come together in a session and find out how they would like to do the
> invitations in the closing circle. Maybe some will wait until next year?
> Maybe multiple WOSONOSes in one year? Maybe in different continents at the
> same time? Maybe with different themes/urgent questions?
>
>
> On 10/8/15 5:23 PM, Michael Herman wrote:
>
> i love this bit about bucky the verb, harold.
>
> what i don't understand about this tyranny business is that it sounds like
> somebody, the system or some people are doing some other people wrong.
>  alternatively, that somehow -- naturally or maybe just
> unconsciously or unintentionally -- winners and losers, ins and outs, are
> being created.  i can't tell if the suggestion is that this is a
> malicious thing to be defeated, a natural thing to observe, or some kind of
> problem to be solved. ÂÂÂ
>
> leaving aside those instances when people do truly horrible things to
> others, how does this tyranny story square with the core open space story
> that each of us is ultimately responsible for our own experience, we all
> have two feet or some equivalent and need to use them for ourselves?
> ÂÂÂ
>
> how does this essay inform your practice of opening space?  or
> participating on the list?  if everything in the essay is true, what
> should the next wosonos invitation process look like?  can we put
> this in practice terms?   what is one to do in the presence of
> tyrannizing structurelessness?  what has anyone done in the past, in
> those instances you've seen, that made some positive difference? ÂÂÂ
>
>
>
>
> ÂÂÂ
> --
>
> Michael Herman
> Michael Herman Associates
> http://MichaelHerman.com
> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Michael Herman <michael at michaelherman.com
> > wrote:
>
>> you've made my statement a little stronger than i did, daniel.  i
>> said i didn't see the connection, not that there wasn't one.  i'm
>> catching up here not resisting.  i'm inquiring.
>>
>> in the situation of osonos, it seems to me that we have a formal
>> practice, written up in the users guide, wherein it is written that anyone
>> can post a topic and people will have the right to choose what they want to
>> attend.  but we don't actually do that in selecting osonos sites.
>>  we often default informally to old habits like voting.  or
>> said another way, i guess i can't quite determine what is formal and
>> informal structure, or which one is maybe running over the other.
>>  we have oslist faq's but probably not many people read and live by
>> them.  it would seem we're not at a loss for formal structure, we
>> just prefer to operate by informal habits.  that's not uncommon, is
>> it?  harrison's line about, "if we did business here the way we say
>> we do business, we'd be out of business," comes to mind.  and the
>> union tactic of working to rule. ÂÂÂ
>>
>> so is the question you're asking here about the relative value of formal
>> and informal structures?  are you suggesting formal structures are
>> better than informal?  am i still missing something?
>>
>>
>>
>> ÂÂÂ
>> --
>>
>> Michael Herman
>> Michael Herman Associates
>> http://MichaelHerman.com
>> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Daniel Mezick < <dan at newtechusa.net>
>> dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Greeting All, Greeeetings Michael,
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow. Michael. Seriously. You can really type (and talk) a blue streak.
>>> You know? You're wearing me out...
>>>
>>> ...no no, just kidding. I'm not QUITE exhausted yet...I've had time to
>>> rest up!
>>>
>>> So, by all means keep it coming. I'm rested and ready!
>>>
>>>
>>> ....Now: A couple things do stand out here:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The Tyranny of Inquiry?
>>> ================
>>> Michael, you say:
>>> "i notice that you said in your first message that you find this
>>> "extremely interesting" *but you've yet to say why.*"
>>>
>>> Wait. Stop right there.
>>>
>>> Earlier, you ask:
>>> "*Is it not some kind of tyranny* we all attempt over and over again *when
>>> we expect and insist that the world explain itself to/for us?*"
>>>
>>> (brief pause of silence here, for an ironic, even paradoxical effect....)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Seriously.  Inquiry is good!  There is no tyranny to be
>>> found in it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like the essay because it speaks to a really, really, important topic,
>>> namely:
>>>
>>> The various problems with informal authority-distribution, inside groups
>>> that devalue "structure," or value other things -over- "structure."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also like this essay because it feels very timely and pertinent with
>>> respect to Pernilla Luttropp's recent (and important) post on
>>> decision-making, entitled: "An invitation to future invitations to WOSONOS."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Some Disconnected Dots?
>>> ==================
>>>
>>> You express:
>>>
>>> "i'm having some trouble connecting "elites," "movement,"
>>> "authorization" and some other terms in the essay to my experience in open
>>> space and on the list. the essay seems to want to fix a problem, *but
>>> one that's not familiar to me, at least not as a sort of thing to be
>>> solved."*
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, Michael, that you have completely
>>> examined this essay.
>>>
>>>
>>> To be clear: You are not familiar with *any* of the many problems (not
>>> even one) described in this essay?
>>>
>>> If you are familiar with any of these, then you see them as *"not as a
>>> sort of thing to be solved?"*
>>>
>>> (For the record, the term "authorization" does not appear anywhere in
>>> this essay. The term "authority" does appear 5 times.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now: We've recently had exactly the type of concerns the essay
>>> addresses, voiced right here on OSLIST recently.
>>>
>>> You yourself are a heavy contributor Pernilla Luttropp's post, "An
>>> invitation to future invitations to WOSONOS."
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a part of that, provided for convenience (I copied this verbatim
>>> from the post, with my emphasis added...)
>>>
>>>
>>> <BEGIN>
>>> *"At the inspiring WOSONOS in Krakow there were some learning
>>> conversations on how this community goes about when expressing and
>>> accepting** invitations from countries/places to host the upcoming
>>> WOSONOSes. In the big circle there were voices that expressed some
>>> confusion and discomfort with the process...*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"...There seems to be something unclear about the "tradition" on how to
>>> get information about who is inviting and why. If that information were
>>> transparent from the very start of the WOSONOS, it might enable more
>>> dialogue with the inviting hosts and between the hosts." <END> *
>>> This expression by Pernilla is about how decisions. About how
>>> future-WOSONOS-venues are identified, developed, and then authorized.
>>>
>>> This issue does pertain quite directly, I think, to the essay. Right? I
>>> wonder if others reading agree, or disagree.
>>>
>>> Either way, it is always great when a new voice shows up!
>>>
>>> Here is the specific part of the essay that clearly pertains: emphasis
>>> added...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <BEGIN>
>>> For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and
>>> to participate in its activities *the structure must be explicit, not
>>> implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to
>>> everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized.* This is not
>>> to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the
>>> informal structure. It usually doesn't. But it does hinder the informal
>>> structure from having predominant control and make available some means of
>>> attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the
>>> needs of the group at large.
>>> * <END>*
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone else (besides Michael) thinks that these two items,
>>> what Pernilla is saying and what this essay is saying, are in no way
>>> related?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/7/15 4:48 PM, Michael Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> wasn't actually intended as personal feedback, daniel.  was meant
>>> to be a comment on the territory we all share, even when we might, any of
>>> us, feel in the moment like an outsider, that disorientation is actually a
>>> part of being included in the experience of open space.   ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> as for the essay, i guess i'm still a little unclear about the
>>> connection.  open space doesn't strike me as any sort of striving
>>> for structurelessness.  and i've seen both formal and informal
>>> structure arise in open space.  harrison's term in his "millennial
>>> organization" book and what i've seen happen is "appropriate levels of
>>> structure and control." ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> the oslist doesn't seem structureless, either.  there are all
>>> kinds of limiting and supporting structures that make it possible.
>>>  and then there are the customs we've developed, like it's common
>>> and desired for people to reply to the whole list with answers to
>>> questions, and even personal stories and sidebars, rather than always
>>> taking that stuff to private emails.  much of the informal stuff was
>>> captured in chris corrigan's oslist faq's i mentioned earlier.  and
>>> these things change.  the address changed.  the admin
>>> changed.  the archives moved but survived, thanks to harold.
>>>  now we allow attachments.  the archives were private and
>>> later became publicly searchable.  new people show up all the time,
>>> and join in.  the user's non-guide (ebook) captured one great moment
>>> in joining when julie smith showed up very new to all of this, asked some
>>> great questions, and sparked all kinds of conversation on many important
>>> dimensions of the practice. ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> maybe your definition of structure will also define structureless.
>>>  i guess i don't know what ever could be structureless, in line wiht
>>> chris' story... except that everything's moving, it's all flow, as harrison
>>> says.  but maybe those two stories aren't at odds, either... some
>>> bits are just more dense or more slowly flowing than others, but it's all
>>> flow in the end.  is flow structureless?ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> is the tyranny of structurelessness just to say that everything's
>>> moving, and moving on, even the parts we really like, and that can make for
>>> some difficult experiences... that would also be nobody's fault, but just
>>> part of the shared condition?  uncomfortable in spots, to be sure,
>>> but nobody's and no system's "fault" or "responsibility?" ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> as mentioned earlier, OS and the circle don't make people equal.
>>>  some will always be better, faster, stronger, more attractive, more
>>> connected than others.  is thta a problem to be solved?  i'm
>>> having some trouble connecting "elites," "movement," "authorization" and
>>> some other terms in the essay to my experience in open space and on the
>>> list.  the essay seems to want to fix a problem, but one that's not
>>> familiar to me, at least not as a sort of thing to be solved. ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> why is this essay important for you?  how does it inform your
>>> understanding and practice of open space?  or your participation on
>>> the oslist?  are we a movement?  are you an elite?  is
>>> open space at risk of being taken over?  help me make the
>>> connection(s)? ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> i notice that you said in your first message that you find this
>>> "extremely interesting" but you've yet to say why.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÂÂÂ
>>>
>>> ÂÂÂ
>>> --
>>>
>>> Michael Herman
>>> Michael Herman Associates
>>> http://MichaelHerman.com
>>> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Daniel Mezick < <dan at newtechusa.net>
>>> dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yo Michael,
>>>>
>>>> The whole "story-context-is-missing" thing is really just a sidebar to
>>>> the important (and much wider) issues around authority.
>>>>
>>>> These authority-issues are raised by the subject essay, "The Tyranny of
>>>> Structurelessness." What a great essay!
>>>>
>>>> Story-context is a really, really important topic though, especially if
>>>> "missing-context" does have at least the potential to evoke feelings of
>>>> exclusion, in at least some members of the list.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding some of the things you are saying:
>>>>
>>>> You say, "Exclusion is the illusion. A little bit of errant and
>>>> temporary mental structure."
>>>>
>>>> I say, my current belief is that my feelings are not illusion
>>>> whatsoever, nor are they error. Rather they are real and valid, human
>>>> emotions. They are emotions which, when experienced fully, are in fact an
>>>> essential aspect of living well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You say, "...I notice the word tyranny again in the subject. Is it not
>>>> some kind of tyranny we all attempt over and over again when we expect
>>>> and insist that the world explain itself to/for us?"
>>>>
>>>> I say, my current belief is that inquiry is not simply important, it is
>>>> in fact essential. Inquiry is good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any event, and as always, I do appreciate your feedback.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am now keen to get back to the main topic !
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how we might, in the here and now, go about defining the term
>>>> "structure," for purposes of further discussing issues raised by this essay
>>>> with much more clarity.
>>>>
>>>> That's a question I'm keen to explore with you, and the other members
>>>> of this list, inside this thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Daniel
>>>> http://www.Prime-OS.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/6/15 11:56 AM, Michael Herman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes and Daniel, there are the words of a story and the feeling/meaning
>>>> of it. I considered writing a longer message in the telling of this story,
>>>> but I wanted to transmit as much of the spirit/experience of it as I
>>>> could.ÂÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> Ralph didn't offer any explanation of his observation that morning. He
>>>> did just like I said, got up in a morning news circle, it was an
>>>> OTgathering as I noted but that doesn't matter, it was open space
>>>> and morning news. He said his piece and sat down. The experience for me,
>>>> and others I have learned only later, was stunning and disorienting,
>>>> for sure. ÂÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> I thought to honor and convey this
>>>> experience through some measure of similar brevity in
>>>> my retelling. Maybe this is what you picked up on. The disorienting
>>>> magic of Ralph's moment.ÂÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> There are moments in open space of surprise and disconnect, maybe
>>>> frustration or confusion or misunderstanding or disorientation and even
>>>> disappointment that arise in open space. This we all know and have
>>>> experienced. This, to me, is not so much a thing to be solved but
>>>> the nature of the territory. It just is.ÂÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> Ralph never did explain his statement, as far as I know.
>>>> He had something to say and he said it. That was his only job. After that,
>>>> each of us had to figure out for ourselves what, if anything, to do
>>>> with his story, to decide if it was wisdom or wisecrack. The storyteller, I
>>>> think, has only the responsibility for finding and sharing what's true for
>>>> him/her.  The rest is up to us.ÂÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this points to the learning and challenge that we
>>>> all have in open space, namely learning to trust more and more that we
>>>> already are always included in a flow that is bigger and deeper or whatever
>>>> than we can see or understand or articulate sometimes. Exclusion is
>>>> the illusion. A little bit of errant and temporary mental structure.
>>>> Discomfort is not a problem (and can't be solved by anyone!); it's a trail
>>>> marker.  Which is to say about exclusion and missing out, "welcome!"
>>>>  The good news is, and the bad news is, you're in!  And, it's
>>>> all still happening Now.ÂÂÂ
>>>>
>>>> As I scroll up to send tha now, I notice the word tyranny again in the
>>>> subject. Is it not some kind of tyranny we all attempt over and over again
>>>> when we expect and insist that the world explain itself to/for
>>>> us?  Is this not something of our central challenge,
>>>> something all of us work with?  The edge of open space is an
>>>> end of comfortable, conventional understanding?  Or something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
>>>> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Harrison,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the tips on how to search OSLIST and Google, etc. I did do
>>>>> those things actually. However, that's a bit of an effort, especially
>>>>> searching the OSLIST archives. I guess I could eventually pick up OSLIST
>>>>> culture that way, little by little. I suppose an earnest person with loads
>>>>> of time could sift through OSLIST archives to figure this culture out. The
>>>>> hard way.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, like the SPIRIT book teaches, there is nothing like a good
>>>>> story to convey culture. The kind of story with a beginning, a middle and
>>>>> an end.
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice that, when you are the one referring to a certain OS-mythos
>>>>> story, you usually tend to include the short list of pertinent details, the
>>>>> essential details that provide the essential context, so the reader can
>>>>> follow along, and engage.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm always grateful for that, as it helps me to follow along, and
>>>>> get what you are referring to, and more fully understand the story, and
>>>>> feel oddly included in the story.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Earlier, I express how not having the context tends to (for me) arouse
>>>>> feelings of: exclusion, cluelessness, and a general lack of membership in
>>>>> whatever "historic-OS-mythos-episode" is being referred to. Sort of an "out
>>>>> group" feeling. You know? Sometimes, I wonder what the poster might be
>>>>> thinking by posting random fragments of a "you had to be there" kind of
>>>>> story. Other times, I wonder if other readers are also feeling these
>>>>> feelings. Or if it is "just me."
>>>>>
>>>>> And so: I am very grateful for your stories, in part because you
>>>>> include the pertinent details, and in so doing, make me (for one) feel
>>>>> included.
>>>>>
>>>>> So thanks for including the context in your stories. It makes them
>>>>> fun, and easy to follow. OSLIST culture certainly has it's quirks, and for
>>>>> me, your stories make this culture easier to figure out, and navigate, and
>>>>> enjoy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting back to the Tyranny of Structurelessness:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think these 3 assertions by the author are actually true? Do
>>>>> these ideas have legs?
>>>>>
>>>>>    - *This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of
>>>>>    "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures,
>>>>>    only formal ones.*
>>>>>    - *For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given
>>>>>    group and to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit,
>>>>>    not implicit. *
>>>>>    - *It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured
>>>>>    groups, which forms the basis for elites.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/6/15 10:04 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, Google can often help. <https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> ho
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* OSList [ <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>>> mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>>> <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>] *On Behalf Of *Daniel
>>>>> Mezick via OSList
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 4:51 PM
>>>>> *To:* Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Howdy Harrison,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for describing the context of the Ralph Copleman story- I'm
>>>>> very thankful for that info.
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice that, lots of times here, there are references made to
>>>>> notable OST episodes, and situations from times past...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...the "OST-mythos" as it were.
>>>>>
>>>>> These mythical stories often have me wondering what I missed, and what
>>>>> I might now be missing. (Being clueless as I am.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure these story-fragment postings are not posted with intent to
>>>>> exclude anyone, or to be discourteous, or unkind. More like: some good old
>>>>> basic camaraderie is taking place between some old friends.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still: Do these "inside-story-fragments" on OSLIST tend to evoke
>>>>> feelings of exclusion in readers who were *not* there at the time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> <CONFESSION>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for me, personally, I sometimes find myself experiencing curiously
>>>>> odd feelings of exclusion, when a told-fragment of an old OST-mythos story
>>>>> lacks explicit context. So I can follow the story, you know? The terms
>>>>> "outsider" or "clueless" or  "not in the story" describe these
>>>>> feelings fairly well. "Not invited?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I sometimes wonder if some of the hundreds of *other* members of
>>>>> OSLIST ever feel this way...or if it is "just me."
>>>>>
>>>>> </CONFESSION>
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> “Everything is moving.â€
>>>>>   .... Michael -- I remember that moment very well.
>>>>> And Dan, I’m not sure the context,
>>>>> etc, would help very much. But just for the record the odd phrase
>>>>> popped out at one of the International Symposia on Organization
>>>>> Transformation which happened to be taking place at a small college south
>>>>> of Seattle. I have no idea why Ralph said what he did, and I’m
>>>>> not sure Ralph did either. But then again a lot of marvelous stuff
>>>>> seems to burst out with no obvious logic train. Indeed it may be that the
>>>>> lack of logic train enables the thought?
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever the genesis, the phrase wandered about my head for some time,
>>>>> quite unattached, and it also happened that I was working my way slowly
>>>>> through one of the masterpieces of 20th century western philosophy
>>>>> when a fuzzy connection began to form. The work was that of Alfred North
>>>>> Whitehead, and the title: “Process and
>>>>> Reality.†I’ve been
>>>>> through the book probably 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I
>>>>> don’t think I really understand it.
>>>>> But then again I’ve
>>>>> heard  a number of people with much greater credentials,
>>>>> tenure, etc – say the same thing. But
>>>>> I did get that it had something to do with, “Everything
>>>>> is moving.†And the more I thought and read, the
>>>>> more I felt that the good philosopher had made a small mistake on his
>>>>> title. It shouldn’t be
>>>>> “Process *and* Reality,â€
>>>>> but rather “Process *is* Reality.â€
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, Anna Caroline we come to “structure,â€
>>>>> or perhaps I should say the fallacy of Structure? Yes I know –
>>>>> we’ve all been taught that structure
>>>>> is the precursor, the “determinatorâ€
>>>>> of everything. My face looks as it does because of my bone structure.
>>>>> My life proceeds the way it does because of my social structure. My
>>>>> business works as it does because of the organizational structure. And of
>>>>> course, meetings happen the way they do because of meeting structure, which
>>>>> apparently is the prime domain of “facilitators.â€
>>>>> And even if we hadn’t been “taughtâ€
>>>>> all this, the primacy of structure would appear to be blatantly
>>>>> obvious – as plain as the nose on your
>>>>> face.
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, it does seem to turn out that sometimes the blatantly
>>>>> obvious is not necessarily so. For example just looking at things it is
>>>>> pretty clear that the world is flat, or at the least bumpy flat. And any
>>>>> fool can see that we are the center of it all –
>>>>> Sun, moon, and stars whiz around us.  But when we
>>>>> think about it, as we have been doing for the last 500-600 years, the
>>>>> obvious isn’t so obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> It is reasonable to ask what would start to make us think differently
>>>>> – to the point that we begin to
>>>>> question the obvious, and even come to see things in a different way?
>>>>> Taking a leap, I will suggest that it all begins with the perception of
>>>>> anomaly. Things just don’t make sense.
>>>>> Our eyes tell us one thing... but???? And then we start making up
>>>>> stories to explain the apparently unexplainable. We imagine different ways
>>>>> of looking at things so that the nonsensical makes sense. Some of those
>>>>> stories get pretty strange, but if they actually work –
>>>>> that is to say, help us to see in new and useful ways –
>>>>> that’s great!
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> There is, of course, a proper term for the activity I have been
>>>>> describing. It is called Theory Building. And for whatever it is worth,
>>>>> “theory†comes from the
>>>>> Greek “*theoreinâ**€ *
>>>>> – to see. In a word, theories are ways
>>>>> of looking at things – likely stories
>>>>> you might say.
>>>>>
>>>>> ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, at long last (too long?) we come to the odd story I was starting
>>>>> to tell, to the effect that Structure is only a figment of our imagination,
>>>>> a flash frame of a moment gone by. Interesting, and helpful under some
>>>>> circumstances... but always partial and in a sense illusory. Whatâ
>>>>> €™s “reallyâ€
>>>>> happening is all flow. Everything is moving –
>>>>> That’s
>>>>> Ralph’s
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>
> [Message clipped]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20151009/b0fd1755/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list